Theocratic Warfare and Taqiyya

by aqwsed12345 51 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  aqwsed12345

  When the Watchtower Society claims that the New Testament originally included the name “Jehovah” but that it was later systematically altered to “Kyrios” (Lord) through deliberate textual corruption, they inadvertently echo the Islamic doctrine of Taḥrīf (تحريف). Taḥrīf, as held by many Muslims, alleges that the Bible has been corrupted, with key elements of God’s original revelations altered or removed. Jehovah’s Witnesses, while professing to be Christians, align themselves with this Islamic accusation by asserting that the New Testament text has undergone similar corruptions. This curious alignment raises theological and historical questions, not least about the credibility of such claims in light of early Christian history and the integrity of scriptural transmission.

  The Implausibility of the Watchtower's Claim

  The claim that “Jehovah” was systematically removed from the New Testament is historically untenable. Early Christians displayed a remarkable attachment to their sacred texts, as evidenced by the cucurbita controversy between Jerome and Augustine during the translation of the Vulgate. Jerome’s decision to translate the Hebrew word qîqāyôn (קִיקָיוֹן) in Jonah 4:6 as hedera (ivy) instead of the familiar cucurbita (gourd, which was based on the LXX rendering κολοκύνθη) caused an uproar among Christians, with some congregations reacting so strongly that it nearly led to riots. Augustine reports the incident in his letter to Jerome:

  "A certain bishop, one of our brethren, having introduced in the church over which he presides the reading of your version, came upon a word in the book of the prophet Jonah, of which you have given a very different rendering from that which had been of old familiar to the senses and memory of all the worshippers, and had been chanted for so many generations in the church. Thereupon arose such a tumult in the congregation, especially among the Greeks, correcting what had been read, and denouncing the translation as false, that the bishop was compelled to ask the testimony of the Jewish residents (it was in the town of Oea). These, whether from ignorance or from spite, answered that the words in the Hebrew manuscripts were correctly rendered in the Greek version, and in the Latin one taken from it. What further need I say? The man was compelled to correct your version in that passage as if it had been falsely translated, as he desired not to be left without a congregation -- a calamity which he narrowly escaped. From this case we also are led to think that you may be occasionally mistaken. You will also observe how great must have been the difficulty if this had occurred in those writings which cannot be explained by comparing the testimony of languages now in use."

  "... I beg of you ... to send us your translation of the Septuagint, which I did not know that you had published ... in order that we may be delivered, so far as is possible, from the consequences of the notable incompetency of those who, whether qualified or not, have attempted a Latin translation; and in order that those who think that I look with jealousy on your useful labours, may at length, if it be possible, perceive that my only reason for objecting to the public reading of your translation from the Hebrew in our churches was, lest, bringing forward anything which was, as it were, new and opposed to the authority of the Septuagint version, we should trouble by serious cause of offense the flocks of Christ, whose ears and hearts have become accustomed to listen to that version to which the seal of approbation was given by the apostles themselves. Wherefore, as to that shrub in the book of Jonah, if in the Hebrew it is neither "gourd" nor "ivy," but something else which stands erect, supported by its own stem without other props, I would prefer to call it "gourd" as in all our Latin versions; for I do not think that the Seventy would have rendered it thus at random, had they not known that the plant was something like a gourd ..."

  This controversy, over a word with no theological significance, underscores the sensitivity of early Christians to textual changes. If such a minor alteration could provoke widespread protest, how plausible is it that the systematic removal of the Tetragrammaton—if it had originally been in the New Testament—occurred without any recorded resistance? It is inconceivable that the Christian community, known for its vigilance over the integrity of scripture, would have passively accepted the erasure of God’s personal name without protest or documentation.

  No Evidence of Tetragrammaton Disputes in Pre-Nicene Christianity

  There is no historical evidence that the inclusion or exclusion of the Tetragrammaton was ever an issue for pre-Nicene Christians. Early Church Fathers wrote extensively on theological matters, engaging in fierce debates over doctrines such as Christ’s deity, the Trinity, and the nature of salvation. Yet, there is a deafening silence regarding any controversy over the alleged removal of the Tetragrammaton from the New Testament text.

  Had such a significant alteration taken place, it would have been a central issue of contention, especially among groups like the Arians, who engaged in theological battles with Trinitarians in the fourth century. The absence of any Arian argument alleging textual corruption of the New Testament to erase the Tetragrammaton further discredits the Watchtower’s claim. If such an accusation had been available, it would have been a potent weapon in their theological arsenal, yet it is entirely absent from the historical record.

  The Watchtower’s Contradiction: Aligning with Islam Against Christianity

  By asserting systematic corruption of the New Testament, Jehovah’s Witnesses adopt a position strikingly similar to the Islamic doctrine of Taḥrīf. This alignment is paradoxical for a group that identifies as Christian. The implication of their claim is that the early Christian community, supposedly guided by God’s Spirit, not only failed to preserve the name of God but also actively colluded in its erasure. This narrative undermines the credibility of early Christianity as the authentic continuation of God’s covenant people.

  In contrast, the Qur'an itself affirms the authority of the Torah (Tawrat or Tawrāh, تَّوْرَاة‎) and the Gospel (ʾInjīl, إنجيل), referring to them as divine revelations (Surah 5:46-48). Early Islamic commentators like Ibn Abbas and Al-Tabari viewed Taḥrīf primarily as a misinterpretation of scripture rather than textual corruption. The Watchtower Society, however, adopts an extreme position, asserting a level of corruption that even many early Muslim scholars would find excessive.

  Theological and Historical Inconsistencies

  The Watchtower’s claim fails to account for the theological coherence and historical consistency of the New Testament. The early Church did not operate as a centralized institution capable of enforcing such widespread alterations to scripture. The New Testament manuscripts were rapidly copied and disseminated across diverse linguistic and cultural communities. Any attempt to systematically remove the Tetragrammaton would have left traces in the manuscript tradition, yet no such evidence exists. In fact, the thousands of New Testament manuscripts, along with quotations from early Church Fathers, consistently use terms like Kyrios (Lord) and Theos (God) in places where the Watchtower alleges “Jehovah” was removed.

  Moreover, the emergence of the nomina sacra—a scribal convention that abbreviated sacred names like Kyrios and Theos—in early Christian manuscripts demonstrates a reverence for these terms rather than an effort to obscure or replace the Tetragrammaton. This practice, which predates the second century, further undermines the claim that the divine name was systematically erased.

  Conclusion: A Claim Without Basis

  The Watchtower Society’s assertion that “Jehovah” was removed from the New Testament aligns it with the Islamic accusation of Taḥrīf, placing it in opposition to the historical and textual evidence of early Christianity. The cucurbita controversy highlights the implausibility of such a claim, given the early Christian community’s resistance to even minor textual changes. The absence of any historical debate over the Tetragrammaton, even among heretical groups like the Arians, further discredits this theory.

  Far from undermining the reliability of the New Testament, the manuscript tradition affirms its textual integrity and the faithfulness of its transmission. The Watchtower’s position, by echoing Islamic polemics against the Bible, inadvertently calls into question its own claim to represent authentic Christianity. Instead of leveling unfounded accusations against the New Testament, Jehovah’s Witnesses would do well to recognize the rich manuscript evidence that underscores the trustworthiness of scripture and the faithfulness of the early Christian community in preserving God’s word.
• 

  Earnest

  There is silence about a lot of things in early Christianity. There is silence about the decision to use the codex instead of the scroll, which often distinguishes Jewish and Christian texts. There is silence about the reason for the universal use of nomina sacra, and when it started, which is also a distinguishing mark of Christian texts.

  One of the prime reasons to believe that the NT contained God's name in either Greek or Hebrew form is that we know that the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures which the early Christians used, contained God's name in either Greek or Hebrew form, and that this was replaced by the Greek form of "Lord" sometime after the first century. In other words, every manuscript of the LXX that we have prior to the second century which include verses containing the tetragrammaton in Hebrew, also have God's name in the Greek text. Yet from the second century onwards this has been replaced in all copies of the LXX by the Greek form of the word "Lord". But we have no record of any discussion that this dramatic change should take place across all copies of the LXX. But we know it did. This was without doubt a "Christian" decision as by this time the Jews had resorted to other Greek translations as the LXX had effectively been hijacked by the Christians for exegetical purposes. It seems likely that whoever was responsible for the decision to change all copies of the LXX in this respect was also responsible for changes made to Christian writings.
  
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @Earnest

  The absence of explicit documentation for certain practices in early Christianity (e.g., the adoption of the codex or nomina sacra) is not evidence that these practices were arbitrary or comparable to the Watchtower's claim of textual corruption. The adoption of the codex or the use of abbreviations (nomina sacra) likely evolved for practical or devotional reasons, and neither required significant theological controversy. In contrast, replacing the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) with "Kyrios" would represent a profound theological shift—removing the divine name central to Jewish worship and replacing it with a term that could refer to other entities (e.g., "Lord" as a title for Jesus). Such a significant change would have been highly contentious, sparking recorded debates, especially considering the well-documented controversies over far less significant textual or theological issues (e.g., the cucurbita incident or disputes about the canon). The absence of any record of such a debate undermines the plausibility of their claim.

  You assert that the Septuagint (LXX) originally contained the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew or Greek transliteration (e.g., ΙΑΩ) but that Christians “replaced” it with "Kyrios" after the first century. This claim relies on selective interpretation of limited manuscript evidence and overlooks the following points. While some pre-Christian manuscripts of the LXX (e.g., 4Q120, 8HevXIIgr) indeed include the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew or ΙΑΩ, these examples are rare and fragmentary and do not represent the entire LXX tradition. Other LXX manuscripts, including those used by Philo of Alexandria (20 BCE–50 CE) and the New Testament writers, consistently use "Kyrios" as the divine name. Philo, for instance, frequently quotes the LXX and explicitly equates "Kyrios" with God’s name. As noted by Martin Rösel and Larry Hurtado, the use of "Kyrios" in the LXX was likely an original feature of many texts, chosen by Jewish translators for theological reasons, such as avoiding the pronunciation of the divine name (Adonai was already a spoken substitute for YHWH in Hebrew texts).

  The idea that all early LXX manuscripts contained the Tetragrammaton is speculative and contradicted by the textual tradition. The widespread use of "Kyrios" in surviving LXX manuscripts, including pre-Christian ones, suggests that it was an established practice among Greek-speaking Jews. The replacement theory relies on the unproven assumption that a singular decision was made to remove YHWH from all LXX manuscripts. As Dominique Gonnet and Rösel argue, the coexistence of different forms (e.g., YHWH, ΙΑΩ, "Kyrios") reflects a lack of standardization rather than a deliberate, systematic alteration.

  The NT consistently uses "Kyrios" in quotations from the LXX, even in cases where the original Hebrew text has the Tetragrammaton (e.g., Romans 10:13 quoting Joel 2:32). This indicates that the NT authors were using LXX manuscripts where "Kyrios" was already the standard rendering of YHWH. If the NT writers had used manuscripts with the Tetragrammaton, it is inconceivable that no trace of this practice survives in the NT manuscript tradition. All extant NT manuscripts, even the earliest fragments like 𝔓46 (mid-2nd century), use "Kyrios" and never the Tetragrammaton.

  You argue that Christians “hijacked” the LXX and replaced the Tetragrammaton with "Kyrios" for theological purposes. The LXX was originally a Jewish translation, and its use of "Kyrios" predates Christianity. As Rösel and Pietersma demonstrate, "Kyrios" was likely chosen by Jewish translators to align with the spoken tradition of substituting Adonai for YHWH. The NT authors simply inherited this tradition rather than introducing it. Even post-Christian Jewish revisions of the LXX, such as those by Aquila and Symmachus, reflect similar avoidance of pronouncing YHWH, using Adonai or other substitutes. This demonstrates that the avoidance of the Tetragrammaton was not a uniquely Christian innovation.

  There is no historical or textual evidence that Christians systematically altered all LXX manuscripts to replace the Tetragrammaton with "Kyrios." Such a monumental effort would have required centralized coordination, which was impossible given the decentralized nature of early Christianity. The coexistence of Jewish and Christian communities using the LXX makes it implausible that Christians could have unilaterally altered Jewish texts without opposition or documentation.

  You refer to the nomina sacra as evidence of Christian alterations to the text. However, the development of the nomina sacra underscores the reverence early Christians had for sacred terms rather than supporting the idea of corruption. The nomina sacra abbreviations (e.g., ΚΣ for "Kyrios" and ΘΣ for "Theos") emerged as a devotional practice to distinguish sacred names from ordinary words, not as a replacement for YHWH. This practice is evident in NT manuscripts as early as the second century and reflects continuity with Jewish reverence for God’s name. The absence of nomina sacra for YHWH or ΙΑΩ in NT manuscripts strongly suggests that the Tetragrammaton was not present in the NT autographs.

  If Christians had removed the Tetragrammaton from the NT and LXX, this would have sparked significant controversy, given the centrality of God's name in Jewish theology. Yet no Church Father accuses Christians of removing the Tetragrammaton, and no heretical group (e.g., Arians, Gnostics) uses this as an argument against Trinitarian Christians, despite their willingness to exploit any perceived flaws in the NT text. The absence of such accusations is incompatible with the claim of a widespread textual alteration.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Larry Hurtado, the use of "Kyrios" in the LXX was likely an original feature of many texts

  Actually, that’s wrong. One of the last blog posts Larry Hurtado wrote was to state his view that kyrios only replaced the Tetragrammaton in the LXX from the second century C.E. onwards. He wrote
  

  Our manuscripts of the Septuagint (LXX) routinely have kyrios where the Hebrew has YHWH, but that is a scribal practice that seems to have developed sometime in the second century or so.

  https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2019/05/07/yhwh-texts-and-jesus-a-follow-up/
  
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @slimboyfat

  While Hurtado acknowledges that early Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament sometimes retained the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew characters, he also emphasizes that the practice of reading Kyrios in place of YHWH was already dominant among Greek-speaking Jews long before the second century CE. Hurtado explicitly states:

  “When reading the Greek OT, it appears that the dominant practice was to substitute the Greek term Kyrios for YHWH.”

  This means that even if the Tetragrammaton was present in the text, it was orally rendered as Kyrios in synagogue worship and private reading. The use of Kyrios as a spoken substitute predates the second century and aligns with the Jewish tradition of avoiding the vocalization of the divine name, substituting it with Adonai (Lord) in Hebrew or Kyrios in Greek.

  Paul and other New Testament writers were products of this Jewish tradition. Whether they encountered the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew characters or Kyrios in Greek manuscripts, their understanding of Scripture already equated YHWH with Kyrios. Hurtado’s point that the “referent was clear” underscores the theological consistency in Paul's application of YHWH texts to Jesus, demonstrating that the NT writers deliberately and consciously used Kyrios to refer to both God and Jesus.

  The substitution of YHWH with Adonai (Lord) in Jewish liturgical and everyday reading predates Christianity. By the time of the Second Temple period, the vocalization of the divine name was already avoided out of reverence. This practice naturally carried over into Greek translations of the Scriptures. Greek-speaking Jews who read the LXX adopted Kyrios as the equivalent of Adonai, which they used in place of YHWH. This substitution was not a Christian innovation but a continuation of Jewish tradition.

  While some early LXX manuscripts include the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew script (e.g., 4Q120 and 8HevXIIgr), the vast majority of surviving manuscripts, including those from the first century CE, use Kyrios. This demonstrates that the practice of using Kyrios was widespread among Jewish communities by the time the NT was written. The claim that Kyrios only replaced the Tetragrammaton from the second century onward ignores the diversity in the manuscript tradition and the established oral practice of substituting YHWH with Kyrios.

  The shift to exclusively using Kyrios in written texts likely reflects a gradual standardization influenced by Jewish liturgical practices. By the second century CE, this standardization had become more pronounced. However, the practice of reading Kyrios aloud in place of YHWH predates this textual shift, as Hurtado acknowledges.

  Hurtado’s analysis of Paul’s writings confirms that Paul’s application of YHWH texts to Jesus was deliberate and unambiguous. Paul understood that these texts originally referred to YHWH and intentionally applied them to Jesus to express His divine status.

  Paul, like other first-century Jews, would have been steeped in the oral and liturgical traditions of his time. These traditions consistently rendered YHWH as Kyrios in Greek-speaking contexts. Whether Paul consulted LXX manuscripts with the Tetragrammaton or with Kyrios is irrelevant, as Hurtado argues. Paul was fully aware of the original referent of these texts and intentionally applied them to Jesus.

  As Hurtado notes, Kyrios in the LXX often functions as a proper name, effectively serving as a replacement for YHWH. This underscores the theological weight of Paul’s application of Kyrios texts to Jesus, affirming His divine identity. Far from suggesting textual corruption, Paul’s use of Kyrios highlights the continuity between Jewish and Christian understandings of God’s name and attributes. Paul applies several YHWH texts from the LXX to Jesus, demonstrating his understanding of Jesus as fully divine:

  • Romans 10:13 applies Joel 2:32 to Jesus: “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord (Kyrios) will be saved.”
  • Philippians 2:9-11 alludes to Isaiah 45:23, where “every knee will bow” to YHWH, now applied to Jesus.
  • 1 Corinthians 8:6 reconfigures the Shema (Deut 6:4), explicitly identifying Jesus as “one Lord (Kyrios),” alongside “one God, the Father.”

  These examples demonstrate that Paul’s use of Kyrios was intentional and reflected the theological conviction that Jesus shares in the divine identity.

  The Watchtower Society’s argument that Kyrios replaced the Tetragrammaton in both the LXX and NT manuscripts is speculative and unfounded for several reasons.No extant NT manuscript contains the Tetragrammaton. From the earliest fragments (e.g., P52, P46, P66) to later complete codices, the NT consistently uses Kyrios and never YHWH. If the NT originally included the Tetragrammaton, its complete absence in the manuscript tradition is inexplicable. The early Christians, known for their meticulous copying practices, would not have erased such a significant feature without leaving any trace.

  The development of the nomina sacra (e.g., ΚΣ for Kyrios) in NT manuscripts reflects early Christian reverence for divine names, not an effort to obscure the Tetragrammaton. The use of nomina sacra for Kyrios and Theos predates the second century, further disproving the claim that Kyrios was a later Christian addition.

  The Watchtower’s claim requires a centralized conspiracy to alter both the LXX and NT texts across diverse linguistic and geographic communities—a feat that is historically implausible. The absence of any recorded controversy over the alleged removal of the Tetragrammaton, even among heretical groups, further undermines this theory.
• 

  Earnest

  aqwsed12345 : The idea that all early LXX manuscripts [prior to the second century] contained the Tetragrammaton is speculative and contradicted by the textual tradition. The widespread use of "Kyrios" in surviving LXX manuscripts, including pre-Christian ones, suggests that it was an established practice among Greek-speaking Jews.

  Which specific pre-Christian LXX manuscripts replace the tetragrammaton with "Kyrios"?
  
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @Earnest

  Almost all of our surviving LXX manuscripts date from the second century CE onward, however, we have strong evidence that Kyrios was in use before the Christian era. Philo of Alexandria (20 BCE – 50 CE), a Jewish philosopher, frequently uses Kyrios (Lord) when quoting the Septuagint. Philo never mentions the Tetragrammaton or its preservation in Greek manuscripts, suggesting that Kyrios was already established in his community’s scripture. This demonstrates that the Septuagint circulated with Kyrios in place of the divine name among Hellenistic Jews by the 1st century CE.

  The New Testament writers (all of whom were Jewish) quote extensively from the LXX. In every instance where they quote Old Testament passages containing the Tetragrammaton, they use Kyrios (Lord). If the original LXX manuscripts used the Tetragrammaton universally, it is inconceivable that the apostles and New Testament writers, under divine inspiration, would have conformed to an “altered” version of the text. The practice of using Kyrios as a reverent abbreviation (nomina sacra) for God’s name emerged in the first and second centuries CE. This convention reflects a continuity with the Jewish scribal tradition of substituting Adonai (Lord) for the Tetragrammaton in spoken and written form.

  While certain pre-Christian manuscripts, such as Papyrus Fouad 266, preserve the Tetragrammaton, these fragments are exceptions rather than evidence of a universal standard. Other Greek Jewish texts show no evidence of insisting on the inclusion of the divine name in its Hebrew form. The Jewish community’s widespread avoidance of pronouncing the divine name (substituting Adonai) likely influenced scribes to adopt Kyrios as a reverent equivalent.

  It is important to note the lack of pre-Christian manuscripts that exclusively and universally contain the Tetragrammaton. The evidence points to a diversity of scribal practices among Greek-speaking Jews before the Christian era. While Papyrus Fouad 266 includes the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew script, it is an isolated example, not a conclusive representative of the pre-Christian LXX scribal transmission. The existence of these fragments that preserve the Tetragrammaton does not prove that the use of Kyrios was absent. On the contrary, the broader tradition of Philo, the New Testament, and subsequent manuscripts shows that Kyrios was the dominant practice.

  So what we do know is that Philo, the New Testament writers, and early Christians consistently used Kyrios as the Greek equivalent for the Tetragrammaton. This established practice demonstrates that Kyrios was already widely accepted in the Jewish Greek-speaking world before the Christian era.
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @Earnest

  FYI: Pietersma, Albert (1984), "Kyrios or Tetragram: A Renewed Quest for the Original LXX"

  The claim that there is no pre-Christian Septuagint (LXX) manuscript containing Kyrios for the Tetragrammaton is an argument from silence. It assumes that the absence of early LXX manuscripts with Kyrios is conclusive evidence of its nonexistence. The extant pre-Christian Greek manuscripts are extremely limited and fragmentary. We cannot infer with certainty what the “universal” practice was based on these small samples. Texts like 8HevXIIgr and P. Fouad 266—which contain the Tetragrammaton—reflect a re-Hebraizing recension, where scribes intentionally reintroduced the Tetragrammaton into the Greek text. Albert Pietersma and other scholars (e.g., Hanhart) have shown that these texts are not representatives of the original LXX, but are later corrections aimed at aligning the LXX with the Hebrew tradition.

  Scholars like Albert Pietersma, Martin Rösel, and Larry Perkins argue persuasively that Kyrios was the original rendering of the divine name in the Old Greek (OG). This conclusion is based on the internal evidence of the LXX itself. The translation technique of the Pentateuch indicates that the translators adopted Kyrios consistently as a proper noun, often unarticulated (without the article) to reflect its role as a divine name. In passages like Exodus 8:22 (LXX), Kyrios appears in an appellative form (ho Kyrios) for interpretive purposes, indicating that the translators were intentionally using Kyrios to convey the meaning of the Tetragrammaton, not as a placeholder.

  Furthermore, the consistency with which Kyrios replaces both YHWH and Adonai (when the two occur together, such as in Genesis 15:2 and Deuteronomy 3:24) demonstrates that the translators viewed these names as synonymous in Greek. If the Tetragrammaton were present in the original LXX, such consistent substitution patterns would be inexplicable.

  The argument that there is no recorded discussion about the substitution of Kyrios for the Tetragrammaton fails on multiple fronts. Silence about scribal practices or textual transmission is common in antiquity. For instance, we have no historical record of a decision to introduce the nomina sacra in Christian texts, yet they appear universally in Christian manuscripts.The lack of record about this change does not imply a conspiracy; it reflects the organic and practical development of scribal conventions in Jewish and Christian communities.

  The claim that Christians “hijacked” the LXX is misleading. The Jewish rejection of the LXX began in earnest in the second century AD following disputes with Christians who used the LXX to prove Jesus as the Messiah. In response, Jews favored the proto-Masoretic text and translations like those of Aquila, which avoided Kyrios and reverted to more literal renderings. The absence of the Tetragrammaton in Christian copies reflects continuity with the Greek-speaking Jewish tradition that originally produced the LXX, not a deliberate Christian alteration.

  The claim that Christians systematically replaced the Tetragrammaton with Kyrios after the first century is unsupported by textual evidence. Manuscripts like P. Fouad 266 and 8HevXIIgr post-date the LXX’s original composition and reflect specific re-Hebraizing revisions, not the norm. The original LXX, as Pietersma demonstrates, used Kyrios to represent YHWH. No evidence exists for a widespread Christian effort to alter pre-existing manuscripts. The introduction of Kyrios predates Christianity and aligns with Jewish practices in the Greek-speaking diaspora, where the divine name was not vocalized out of reverence. Moreover, Philo of Alexandria, a pre-Christian Jewish philosopher, explicitly interprets the divine name as Kyrios in his writings (e.g., De Plantatione 85–90). Philo’s testimony confirms that Kyrios was read and understood as the Greek equivalent of YHWH in Jewish communities before the rise of Christianity.

  It is speculative to claim that Christian scribes replaced the Tetragrammaton. The appearance of Kyrios in all known NT manuscripts and later LXX copies aligns with pre-Christian Jewish tradition. If Christians had systematically replaced the divine name, we would expect clear evidence of transitional manuscripts showing inconsistent usage. No such manuscripts exist.
• 

  slimboyfat

  aqwsed123456

  You used a lot of words but you failed to answer Earnest’s question. The answer is that there are no pre-Christian LXX manuscripts that replace the Tetragrammaton with kyrios. This is significant because all the pre-Christian manuscripts that do survive in passages with the divine name use forms of the divine name and none replace it with kyrios.

  When Pietersma wrote his article, he was already swimming against the tide of the material evidence because there were three pre-Christian LXX fragments that used the divine name and no fragments that used kyrios. Since Pietersma wrote his article another two fragments have been discovered that used the divine name and none that used kyrios.

  On the basis of this evidence, as well as evidence from onomastica, two of the most senior LXX scholars, Patrick Skehan and Emanuel Tov, argued that the divine name in the Greek form Yaho was original in the LXX and that kyrios was secondary.

  This evidence and weight of scholarship, bolstered by Anthony Meyer’s recent thesis on the topic, is no doubt why Larry Hurtado also concluded that the LXX only began using kyrios in the second century CE.
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @slimboyfat

  Once I argued with a JW about the hypothesis that if they found a 2nd or 3rd-century NT manuscript fragment which would contain some form of the Tetragrammaton (or ΙΑΩ). Well, what would that prove? That this was the original apostolic variant? That the JW emphasis on the “use” of the Tetragrammaton was the original understanding in the apostolic age? Not even remotely! This would prove only that there was ALSO such a thing, we would not really know anything about who made it, what group it belonged to, what theological background represented. So we wouldn’t really know anything specific about this issue. For example, according to Pietersma, the Greek OT editions with the forms of the Tetragrammaton are the result of a later re-Hebraizing recension, so the hypothetical NT manuscript I suggested could also be the own product of a Judaizing heterodox sect (e.g. Ebionites). We wouldn't really know anything specific, but let's not doubt it, the Watchtower would immediately start promoting that their claim regarding this has been “proven”.

  If such a hypothetical NT manuscript fragment were found containing the Tetragrammaton or ΙΑΩ, it would not conclusively prove that this form was original to the apostles or the earliest Christians. A singular manuscript, or even a handful fragments tell us very little about its origins, provenance, or theological alignment. Was it mainstream or sectarian? Orthodoxy or heresy? Without additional evidence, it’s impossible to attribute this practice to the apostles or the original NT authors. Judaizing sects such as the Ebionites could have produced manuscripts that reintroduced a Hebrew form of the divine name. Such a fragment could simply reflect the influence of a heterodox group, not mainstream Christian belief. The existence of one textual variant does not invalidate other manuscript traditions. For example, we find textual variations in early manuscripts of the Gospels and epistles, but scholars rely on the broad attestation of the textual tradition to reconstruct the original text. A lone fragment with the Tetragrammaton would not outweigh the overwhelming manuscript evidence of Kyrios in the Greek NT.

  In the same unfair way, you now want to reverse the burden of proof, so that instead of the Watchtower having to prove the existence of the Tetragrammaton in the NT, or its removal, I have to present the LXX manuscripts with Kyrios.

  Albert Pietersma’s thesis regarding re-Hebraizing revisions is highly relevant here. Pietersma and other scholars (e.g., Martin Rösel, Emanuel Tov) argue that the presence of the Tetragrammaton in some Greek OT manuscripts, like 8HevXIIgr or Papyrus Fouad 266, represents later corrections that sought to align the Greek text with Hebrew scribal traditions. This process is particularly visible in the Kaige revision, which emerged in the 1st century BCE to “correct” the Septuagint toward proto-Masoretic Hebrew texts. The appearance of the Tetragrammaton in Greek manuscripts reflects a reactionary phase of Jewish scribal activity, not the original practice of the LXX translators. It arose out of a perceived need to return to Hebrew textual and theological norms, likely as part of broader concerns about Hellenistic influence and Christian usage of the LXX. The Kaige revision and re-Hebraizing tendencies show that Jewish scribes were inconsistent in handling the divine name. Some manuscripts included the Tetragrammaton; others used Greek equivalents like Kyrios. This diversity highlights that there was no universal standard in pre-Christian Judaism.

  So the claim that “all” pre-Christian LXX manuscripts containing the divine name use the Tetragrammaton (or ΙΑΩ) is grossly misleading because pre-Christian manuscripts of the LXX are extremely limited and fragmentary. The few surviving examples that preserve the Tetragrammaton are exceptions, not representative of a universal scribal standard. These fragments constitute isolated instances. From such a small sample size, it is methodologically unsound to generalize that “all” pre-Christian LXX manuscripts used the Tetragrammaton. The fact that no extant pre-Christian LXX manuscript contains Kyrios does not prove that Kyrios was absent. The textual gap does not allow for definitive conclusions about the entire pre-Christian LXX tradition. The argument assumes that the absence of Kyrios in a limited number of surviving manuscripts equates to its universal absence. This is a classic argument from silence, which fails to account for the selectivity and incompleteness of the surviving manuscript record.

  Philo of Alexandria consistently uses Kyrios when quoting the Septuagint. This is a crucial piece of evidence for the pre-Christian use of Kyrios in Greek-speaking Jewish communities. Philo never refers to the Tetragrammaton or its Greek equivalents (e.g., ΙΑΩ) in his extensive works. If the divine name were universally preserved in the LXX, Philo’s omission would be inexplicable. Philo explicitly uses Kyrios as a reverent reference to God, demonstrating that Kyrios was already a common and accepted substitute for the Tetragrammaton in Jewish circles during the pre-Christian period.

  The NT writers, all of whom were Jewish, consistently quote the LXX using Kyrios where the Tetragrammaton occurs in the Hebrew Scriptures. The NT authors were writing under divine inspiration. If the original LXX universally contained the Tetragrammaton, it is inconceivable that the apostles would consistently use an “altered” form of the text (Kyrios). In every instance, the NT writers preserve Kyrios, not the Tetragrammaton, reinforcing that this was the form of the Greek Scriptures used in the Jewish-Christian milieu of the first century.

  The Kaige Revision of the Greek Old Testament is key to understanding how scribal practices evolved. The Kaige revisers were hyper-literal scribes who sought to align the Greek text more closely with the proto-Masoretic Hebrew text. The re-Hebraization seen in texts like 8HevXIIgr and P. Fouad 266 reflects a later scribal correction, not the original LXX. This reintroduction of the Tetragrammaton likely arose as a reaction to the increasing Christian use of Kyrios. Pietersma argues that the Old Greek translators originally used Kyrios to represent the Tetragrammaton. The use of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton in certain fragments is evidence of later scribal revisions, not the original translation practice.

  The translation technique of the original LXX, particularly in the Pentateuch, strongly suggests that Kyrios was the original rendering of YHWH. The LXX translators frequently rendered YHWH as Kyrios, often without the definite article, to reflect its function as a divine name. For example in Genesis 15:2, where the Hebrew text has Adonai YHWH, the LXX reads Κύριε Κύριε ("Lord, Lord"). This shows that Kyrios was not merely a placeholder but an intentional rendering. If the Tetragrammaton had been present, we would expect inconsistencies or mixed usage in these renderings. The uniformity of Kyrios strongly indicates that it was the translator’s choice, not a later Christian insertion.

  While scholars like Tov and Skehan argue for the originality of the Tetragrammaton, their views are far from universally accepted. Their conclusions rely heavily on the limited evidence of fragments like P. Fouad 266. These fragments do not represent the full scope of the early LXX tradition. Scholars such as Albert Pietersma, Martin Rösel, and Larry Perkins argue persuasively that Kyrios was original in the Old Greek. Tov himself acknowledges that the evidence is inconclusive, as the number of pre-Christian manuscripts is insufficient to make universal claims.

  A deliberate and perfect textual forgery of the type that the JWs claim about the NT Tetragrammaton would have been physically possible only if the Church had implemented a textual standardization like that implemented by Uthman ibn Affan on the Qur’an. However, this - even if there had been such an intention - would not have been physically possible before the Constantine shift, given that, unlike Islam, which was quickly gaining a position of power, Christianity was a small and persecuted community in its first three centuries, without capability to carry out such centralized textual purge. There is no written record within early Christianity indicating that the Church ever instructed copyists or translators to eliminate YHWH. Such a decision would have required at least an ecumenical council decree, incited significant internal resistance, and could not have been carried out in secret. No external record from non-Christian sources supports this claim either—something that, for example, Jews could have used as a strong argument during theological debates.

  Consider this: even the Uthmanic standardization of the Qur'an was not perfect, and evidence remains that other textual versions existed prior to Uthman's efforts. Capih Uthman ordered the burning of all other manuscripts that differed from the standardized version to suppress existing variations. This very act implies that multiple Qur'anic versions circulated before his standardization.

  Prominent companions of Muhammad, such as Ibn Mas’ud and Ubayy ibn Ka’b, had their own codices that differed from Uthman's version. Ibn Mas’ud’s codex excluded Surahs 1, 113, and 114, Ubayy ibn Ka’b’s codex included additional surahs, such as the “Surah of the Two Lights,” not found in the current Qur'an. Islamic traditions themselves confirm these differences, showing that Uthman did not erase all evidence of alternative readings. Early Qur'anic manuscripts, such as the Sana’a Palimpsest, reveal textual variants when compared to the Uthmanic text. These manuscripts contain differences in wording, order, and even omitted or added verses, proving that diverse versions existed. The existence of multiple qira’at (canonical recitation styles), such as those of Hafs and Warsh, demonstrates that variations persisted even after Uthman’s standardization. These differences include changes in vowels, diacritical marks, and sometimes even words, which alter meanings.

  So despite Uthman’s efforts to enforce a single Qur'anic text, the historical testimonies, manuscript discoveries (e.g., the Sana'a Palimpsest), and surviving variant recitations demonstrate that multiple versions of the Qur'an existed. Uthman’s standardization was not able to completely erase the evidence of these earlier textual differences.

  In light of this, I ask, how was the "evil" Catholic Church able to remove the Tetragrammaton from the New Testament without leaving any direct or indirect trace of it?

  The Watchtower Society frequently conflates hypothetical scenarios with established fact. If some hypothetical NT fragments with the Tetragrammaton were discovered, they would likely promote it as definitive proof of their claims. However, based on the fragmentary manuscript data, it cannot be stated that this is normative. Without widespread attestation across early manuscripts, the fragment’s significance would remain limited. The Watchtower fails to meet the burden of proof for its claim that the Tetragrammaton was removed from the NT. There is no evidence of transitional manuscripts or historical records describing this supposed “removal.” In contrast, the consistent use of Kyrios in the NT and early Christian manuscripts reflects a well-established tradition. The Watchtower ignores the overwhelming evidence for Kyrios in early Christian manuscripts while elevating isolated and ambiguous examples of the Tetragrammaton. Their argument relies on speculation and selective reasoning, not a balanced assessment of the textual tradition.

  Pliny the Younger writes about the Christians: “Affirmabant autem hanc fuisse summam vel culpae suae vel erroris, quod essent soliti stato die ante lucem convenire, carmenque Christo quasi deo dicere...” Why doesn't he write that they call upon some “Iehovah”, thereby causing great scandal to the Jews?